Editing Politics as a Vocation (section)

==Summary==

Weber defines the following: "The state is seen as the sole grantor of the 'right' to physical force.  Therefore, 'politics' in our case would mean the pursuit for a portion of power or for influencing the division of power whether it is between states, or between groups of people which the state encompasses."<ref>Weber 2015: 136</ref>  Following this definition, Weber notes that there are three principles justifying the legitimacy of political domination of the state: traditional authority, [[charisma]]tic authority, and legal authority.<ref>Weber 2015: 137–38</ref>

Much of the middle part of "Politics as a Vocation" consists of Weber's definitions of charisma and leaders, and of the type of people who are called to the profession of politics.<ref>Weber 2015: 138–47</ref>  This is developed by lengthy historical descriptions of how modern politics emerged. Emphasis is placed on the historical examples of Great Britain, the United States, and Germany,<ref>Weber 2015: 148–79</ref> though examples from France, China, Rome, Ancient Greece, and elsewhere are mentioned.  In developing these examples, Weber demonstrates the extent of his grasp of [[comparative historical research]].  To do this, Weber describes the relationship between politicians, political parties, and the bureaucracies they create.  In this section, Weber's writing in "Politics as a Vocation" is similar to his writing in another of his well-known essays, "Bureaucracy."

In the final section<ref>Weber 2015: 178–79</ref> of "Politics as a Vocation", Weber returns to the description of the politician.  His main point is that the politician needs to balance an "[[Ethic]] of Moral Conviction" with an "Ethic of Responsibility." The Ethic of Moral Conviction refers to the core unshakeable beliefs that a politician must hold. The Ethic of Responsibility refers to the day-to-day need to use the means of the state's violence in a fashion which preserves the peace for the greater good. A politician, Weber writes, must make compromises between these two ethics.

To do this, Weber writes, "Politics is made with the head, not with the other parts of body, nor the soul".<ref>Weber 2015: 181</ref>  The most effective politician is one who can excite the emotions of the people who follow, while governing strictly with a cold hard reason{{mdash}}the head. But, he believes, this is a task normal humans cannot do, because they are vain.

Weber writes that [[vanity]] creates unique problems for politicians because they do indeed control the tools of legitimate violence.<ref>Weber 2015: 181–82</ref>  Common vanity, Weber writes, means that politicians are tempted to make decisions based on emotional attachments to followers and [[sycophant]]s, and not on the [[rational]] reasoning needed to govern justly and effectively.  Weber finds this to be a common characteristic among politicians.  As a result, Weber claims, the danger of politics is rooted in the relationship of the politician to the means of violence which are intrinsic to the state, and which will be misused by any vain politician. This is why Weber emphasizes that the practice of politics is so difficult, and not a task for someone who seeks salvation for their eternal soul through the practice of peace and brotherhood.  In developing these points, he makes reference to the [[two kingdoms doctrine]] of [[Martin Luther]], and the holy [[Hindu]] [[Upanishads]].

In the concluding sentences of the essay,<ref>Weber 2015: 197–98</ref> Weber comments on the [[German Revolution]] of 1919 which was underway when he wrote the essay.  He gloomily predicts that the emotional excitement of the moment in 1919 will bring only "polar nights with an icy darkness and harshness, no matter what group will successfully seize power at present." After saying this, Weber ends on a mildly optimistic note: "Only someone who is certain that it will not break him when, from where he stands, the world looks too stupid or mean for what he wants to offer it{{mdash}}that in spite of everything he will be able to say ‘but, ''still''!'{{mdash}}only he has the 'call' [''den "Beruf"''] for politics!"<ref>Weber 2015: 198 (retranslated);  "''Nur wer sicher ist, dass er daran nicht zerbricht, wenn die Welt, von seinem Standpunkt aus gesehen, zu dumm oder zu gemein ist für das, was er ihr bieten will, dass er all dem gegenüber:  'dennoch!' zu sagen vermag, nur der hat den 'Beruf' zur Politik".''</ref>